Opinion
No. 93-974.
March 2, 1994.
APPEAL FROM FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE WILLIAM L. McLEOD, J.
Kenneth E. Badon, Lake Charles, for Lonnie Lee Portie et ux.
W. Gerald Gaudet, Lafayette, for Devall Towing and Boat Service, Inc.
Before GUIDRY, LABORDE and THIBODEAUX, JJ.
Plaintiffs, Lonnie Lee Portie and his wife, Yvonne Renee Portie, appeal a judgment of the trial court sustaining defendants', Devall Towing and Boat Service, Inc. and/or Devall Towing and Boat Service of Hackberry, Inc. (Devall), exception of no cause of action as to plaintiffs' claim for damages, asserted in their supplemental petition, for the wrongful termination of Carl Portie, plaintiffs' brother and brother-in-law respectively. We affirm.
FACTS
On or about December 17, 1991, Lonnie Lee Portie, who was employed by Devall as a seaman and member of the crew of the M/V Allen D, was injured during the course and scope of his employment. Thereafter, on February 6, 1992, plaintiffs filed suit against Devall alleging unseaworthiness of the vessel and negligence of the defendant(s). Subsequently, Carl Portie, Lonnie's brother, who was also employed by Devall, was terminated. Thereafter, on October 23, 1992, plaintiffs filed a supplemental petition alleging in part that "Carl Portie's supervisor, Donald Buford, admitted under oath that he was instructed by his supervisor to terminate Carl Portie's employment with defendant because plaintiffs had brought this suit." Carl and Yvonne Portie claimed that defendants' actions had damaged their relationship with Carl and had caused them substantial emotional distress. Devall answered the Porties' supplemental petition admitting plaintiffs' allegations regarding Carl Portie's dismissal but pleaded that the supplemental petition stated no cause of action against Devall. The trial court sustained defendants' exception of no cause of action and dismissed the demands set forth in plaintiffs' supplemental petition. Plaintiffs appeal.
When actions are cumulated which could have been brought separately because they are based on operative facts of separate occurrences, a partial judgment may be rendered to dismiss one action on an exception of no cause of action, while leaving the other cause of action to be tried on its merits. Everything on Wheels, infra.
LAW
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993), recently reviewed the function of an exception of no cause of action stating:
The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading. Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La. 1984). No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 931. Therefore, the court reviews the petition and accepts well pleaded allegations of fact as true, and the issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La. 1975); Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So.2d 113 (La. 1991). Id. at 1235.
In his written reasons for judgment on the exception of no cause of action, the trial judge succinctly and correctly set forth the law governing the case. We quote approvingly
Defendants filed an Exception of No Cause of Action directed to the plaintiffs' supplemental petition, which alleges damages to plaintiffs' "relationship with Carl Portie and substantial emotional distress" as a result of the dismissal from defendants' employment of plaintiffs' brother and brother-in-law, Carl Portie. The facts set out in the supplemental petition allege a cause of action arising out of the firing of plaintiffs' brother and brother-in-law, Carl Portie, which firing was due to the filing of plaintiffs' suit on February 6, 1992. . . . The issue before the court is, therefore, whether plaintiffs have a cause of action for impaired personal relationships and emotional distress based upon the termination of the employment of their brother and brother-in-law, when the reason for termination is the filing of a suit by the plaintiffs to exercise the plaintiffs' rights. The general rule is that an employer is entitled to terminate for any reason an employee who is hired for an indefinite term. Civil Code Article 2747, 2024, Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 526 So.2d 1101, 1103 (S.Ct.-1988) [sic]; Hammond v. Medical Arts Group, Inc., et al, 574 So.2d 521, 525 (3dCir-1991) [sic]. The public policy in this general rule is to protect the freedom of the employee to work for whom he prefers. There are, however, some limitations on termination of employment by the employer, as when the termination grows out of exercising one's rights under the worker's compensation act (R.S. 23:1361; Sampson v. Wendy's Management, Inc., 593 So.2d 336 (S.Ct.-1992) [sic]; or for reasons of age (R.S. 23:892, 893, 972); exercising political rights (R.S. 23:961, et seq.); purchase of merchandise from a particular seller (R.S. 23:963); discharge for testifying at a labor investigation (R.S. 23:964); serving as a juror (R.S. 23:965); and race, color, religion, sex or national origin (R.S. 23:1006). These statutory exceptions recognize that in some areas the general rule of termination at the will of the employer needs to be limited, because public policy is best served by making specific exceptions to the general rule. It is to be noted that all of the above limitations, save the last, clearly give only the terminated employee or a public authority a cause of action for enforcement. R.S. 23:1006 gives the right of redress to "a plaintiff who has a cause of action." As far as this court can determine, nowhere do the statutes or jurisprudence provide for a third party other than a public authority to have a cause of action for the termination of the employee. This means that the public policy is to protect the employee himself, not another individual third party.
The plaintiffs argue that the limitations on termination of employment were enacted to prevent the chilling effect that the unrestricted right of termination by an employer would have on the exercise of certain rights by the employee. This is doubtless a raison d'etre of the limiting statutes. See Wiley v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 430 So.2d 1016, 1023 (3dCir-1982) [sic] [writ denied, 431 So.2d 1055 (La. 1983)]. Plaintiffs further argue that "the employer retaliated against both the claimant and a close relative . . ." and that this is illegal because "the same rationale should apply." However, to extend the rationale to the degree suggested by the plaintiff would be a substantial extension of the limitations now in place. This court is impressed with the fact that there is no statute or jurisprudence granting a cause of action in this type of situation to a third party, such as plaintiffs are to the employment relationship between defendants and Carl Portie, and the court is not impressed that any substantial public policy would be furthered by expanding the employee's cause of action, and hence right to damages, to third parties. This court is not called upon to determine, and does not determine, if Carl Portie has a cause of action on account of his termination due to his brother's suit. However, it is the opinion of this court that the plaintiffs have no cause of action on the allegations in the supplemental petition.
We find support for our affirmation of the trial judge in the case of Woodson v. Alarm Protection Services, Inc., 531 So.2d 542 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1988), writ. denied, 533 So.2d 358 (La. 1988). In Woodson, supra, Noella Woodson filed suit against Alarm Protection Services (APS) seeking damages for wrongful termination. Mrs. Woodson alleged she was fired in retaliation after her husband, also an APS employee, filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits. APS filed an exception of no cause of action which the trial court sustained. Mrs. Woodson appealed.
In affirming the judgment of the trial court in Woodson, supra, our brethren of the Fifth Circuit, with whom we agree, stated:
. . . The trial court conceded that the discharge of an employee's wife is no less an evil than the discharge of an employee, but ruled that the statute as written did not include a spouse, ". . . and this Court cannot add an additional class of persons to those the statute now protects." We are called upon to determine the correctness vel non of that ruling.
LSA-R.S. 23:1361 provides in pertinent part:
B. No person shall discharge an employee from employment because of said employee having asserted a claim for benefits under the provisions of this Chapter or under the law of any state or of the United States. Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit an employer from discharging an employee who because of injury can no longer perform the duties of his employment.
C. Any person who has been denied employment or discharged from employment in violation of the provisions of this Section shall be entitled to recover from the employer or prospective employer who has violated the provisions of this Section a civil penalty which shall be the equivalent of the amount of the employee would have earned but for the discrimination based upon the starting salary of the position sought or the earnings of the employee at the time of the discharge, as the case may be, but not more than one year's earnings, together with a reasonable attorney's fee.
Because it is penal in nature, the statute should be strictly construed. Guye v. International Paper Co, Inc., 488 So.2d 1108 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1986); Rambin v. Louisiana Downs, Inc., 482 So.2d 916 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1986) writ denied 484 So.2d 670 (La. 1986).
Clearly, the statute protects from discharge only the said employee having asserted a claim. Noella Woodson did not assert a claim for benefits as contemplated by the statute. Although the benefits payable under the statute falls within the legal regime of community property, as concluded by the trial judge, the statute is not written to include a spouse. To say otherwise is to add an additional class of persons to those the statute now protects. This we cannot do.
Noella Woodson did not and cannot assert a claim for compensation benefits and accordingly fails to state a cause of action under LSA-R.S. 23:1361. Therefore, the trial court did not err in sustaining the exception. Id. at 543.
The cause of action sought to be asserted herein is much more tenuous than that sought to be asserted by Mrs. Woodson. In the case at bar, it is not the plaintiffs who were fired. Yet, they seek damages for the firing of a third party (albeit a relative). While we find the retaliatory discharge in this case to be reprehensible, there is no basis in law for a cause of action against Devall.
In supplemental brief to this court, appellants argue that, although they may have failed to state a cause of action under La.R.S. 23:1361 for Carl Portie's retaliatory discharge from employment nonetheless they have stated a separate cause of action against Devall for the intentional infliction of emotional harm damages suffered by them. We disagree. Any duty owed plaintiffs, under the circumstances of this case, would necessarily as a result of La.R.S. 23:1361. There is nothing in the statute's language or its legislative history to suggest that it was intended to protect plaintiffs against the type of harm which they allegedly suffered. See Gugluizza v. K.C.M.C. Inc., et al, 606 So.2d 790 (La. 1992).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs-appellants.
AFFIRMED.
THIBODEAUX, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
The supplemental petition of the plaintiffs contained the following language:
12
After plaintiffs filed this suit, defendant laid off plaintiff Lonnie Portie's brother, Carl Portie, who defendant also employed.
13
Carl Portie's supervisor, Donald Buford, admitted under oath that he was instructed by his supervisor to terminate Carl Portie's employment with defendant because plaintiffs had brought this suit.
14
On information and belief, plaintiffs assert that defendant's sole purpose in terminating Carl Portie's employment was to harass and intimidate plaintiffs into dismissing their suit and to inflict emotional harm on them.
15
As a result of defendant's actions, plaintiffs have suffered damage to their relationship with Carl Portie and substantial emotional distress and are entitled to recover damages in an amount to be determined.
The majority labels the plaintiffs' cause of action as one "for damages . . . for the wrongful termination of Carl Portie . . ." the district court's reasons for judgment indicated that "[a]s far as this court can determine, no where do the statutes or jurisprudence provide for a third party other than a public authority to have a cause of action for the termination of the employee."
Both the majority and the trial court mischaracterize the allegations in plaintiffs' supplemental petition. The plaintiffs are not suing for the wrongful termination of Carl Portie. That is a cause of action which is personal to Carl Portie. They are suing for the tortious impact upon them because of Carl Portie's termination. Carl Portie's termination was simply the vehicle used to inflict emotional distress on them. The plaintiffs are claiming damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The cause of action directs itself to the effects of Carl Portie's termination. The plaintiffs' supplemental petition is not seeking an ameliorative remedy in damages or remedial injunctive relief for a terminated employee. Indeed, the remedies available to Carl Portie for his wrongful termination and those available to the plaintiffs for the intentional infliction of emotional distress are different.
As the majority points out, the function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition to determine whether or not the law affords a remedy for the well-pleaded facts set forth therein. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993). In evaluating an exception of no cause of action, a court must assume the truth of the assertion set forth in the petition and interpret those allegations in a light most favorable to maintaining a cause of action. As Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So.2d 113, 114 (La. 1991) stated:
Pleadings must be construed reasonably so as to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at the truth, and to do substantial justice. . . . When it could reasonably do so, the court should maintain a petition against a peremptory exception so as to afford the litigant an opportunity to present his evidence. . . . The purpose of an exception of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency in law of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers; for the purpose of determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts and any annexed documents must be accepted as true.
All doubts must be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Petrocana v. Margo, 577 So.2d 274 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1971). Technical objections are not favored, Hodges v. LaSalle Parish, 368 So.2d 1117 (La. 1979), and allegations need not be specific Roberson v. Provident House, 576 So.2d 992 (La. 1991), for a litigant is entitled to relief under any theory of law which may be justified under the fact alleged. Only if a litigant has no cause of action under any evidence admissible under the pleadings should the action be dismissed. Darville v. Texaco, 447 So.2d 473 (La. 1984).
If the allegations set forth in the plaintiffs' supplemental petition are accepted as true, then the conduct of the defendant does plausibly amount to an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Louisiana's civilian tradition has a strong interest in promoting familial harmony. The intentional disruption of a family unit, even an extended family unit, is inconsistent with Louisiana's legal history and tradition and potentially amounts to conduct so outrageous and extreme "as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and fully intolerable in a civilized community." White v. Monsanto, 585 So.2d 1205 (La. 1991).
The plaintiffs at the very least should be allowed to prove:
(1) That the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desired to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain or substantially certain to result from its conduct.
Id. at 1209; Taylor v. State, 617 So.2d 1198, 1204 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1993), and that the outrageous and extreme conduct arose "from an abuse by the actor of a position, or a relation with the other, which gives him actual or apparent authority over the other, or power to affect his interest." Taylor, Id. at 1204.
Whether the plaintiffs are able to present evidence sufficient to prove the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress because of the defendant's conduct is an issue to be developed at trial. At this stage of the proceedings, they have alleged enough to warrant a cognizable claim.
The majority's reliance on Woodson v. Alarm Protection Services, Inc., 531 So.2d 542 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ. denied, 533 So.2d 358 (1988) is misplaced. The rationale for the decision in Woodson to disallow a cause of action was that the co-employee bringing the action, the wife of the employee who filed the claim, did not assert a cause of action under La.R.S. 23:1361. This statute allows for an action by an employee for a wrongful retaliatory discharge because of having filed a workers' compensation claim. Mrs. Woodson did not file a compensation claim; her husband did. The raison d'etre of Woodson focused on whether the workers' compensation statutory scheme should be extended to protect those persons who had not filed a workers' compensation claim. The court held that it did not. In the case sub judice, the person who was terminated is not filing the claim nor are the persons filing the claim asserting a cause of action on behalf of the terminated employee. As indicated previously, the assertion is that the defendant exercised its prerogative to terminate Carl Portie as a vehicle to inflict emotional harm on them. If proven, that conduct is tortious and actionable under Louisiana law.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.